By Monica Patel
The recent outpouring of bad news about biofuels is impossible to ignore. The imminent death of biofuels — before they are fully born — is being predicted everywhere.
The current "food vs. fuel" debate, for example, alarmingly points to biofuels as the cause for current high food prices. On the environmental front, two articles in the journal Science recently argued that growing fuel could actually exacerbate global warming pollution. Yet, there is strong evidence, many still contend, that a biofuels boom, if done right, will benefit both the economy and the environment.
While they may play a role in food prices, biofuels are not the primary cause of the problem. Maximum estimates put their impact at one-third of the food inflation. Rising energy costs, poor weather conditions, pest and disease shocks, the decreasing value of the dollar, and increased demand for meat in developing countries, account for the bulk of food price inflation.
More critically, credible articles released earlier this year argue that growing fuel could actually aggravate the very environmental problem the alternative fuel is supposed to alleviate. The papers point out that if currently unmanaged forests or grasslands, or other pristine lands, were converted to agricultural lands to sustain the need for fuel crops, the overall carbon benefits derived from replacing fossil fuels with biofuels would be negated.
Alternative fuel proponents counter that biofuels are not inherently "good" or "bad" — it just depends on what fuels are grown, where, and how. Done wrong, they admit that biofuels are potentially disastrous for the economy and our environment. But done right, they contend that biofuels not only can fulfill their promise for agriculture, climate change and oil independence, they also can bolster the domestic auto industry and its leadership role in developing "flex-fuel" vehicles.
What would doing biofuels "right" look like? While corn ethanol has played an important role in getting the biofuels boom going, most experts now agree that future biofuels must be produced using less energy and fewer resources. One paper, "Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt," offers a solution: make biofuels from waste biomass or perennials planted on abandoned agricultural lands. Biofuel made from such "cellulosic" sources — grasses, wastes or wood residues — not only offers immediate greenhouse gas advantages; it also avoids potential "food vs. fuel" conflicts.
Biofuels proponents also point out that consumers are already feeling some of the economic benefits of alternative fuels; they just don't know it. Yes, food prices are up in part due to corn being diverted to make ethanol, but consumers can't blame the biofuels boom for skyrocketing gas prices. According to an analysis released by Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., in March, "oil and gasoline prices would be about 15 percent higher if biofuel producers weren't increasing their output."
Monica Patel is Research Analyst and Advocate for the Ecology Center’s Clean Car Campaign.
